Enviro Groups Lie About Study in Last Ditch Effort to Have Silver Regulated by EPA as a “Pesticide”
Well, don’t say I didn’t warn you there would be more dirty tricks in the closing days of the campaign by radical environmental groups to have silver regulated as a “pesticide” by the EPA. Here’s what I stated in my previous post:
“Without a doubt you can expect more dirty tricks from these rabid environmentalists in the coming weeks, including the last-minute posting of “studies” demonstrating their contention that silver nano-particles are somehow ‘harmful’ to the environment.The enviro-nuts will most likely wait until the very last minute to present these studies to the EPA because they know it will not leave time for our side to review and digest them, and provide point-by-point rebuttals or refutations.The environmental groups have also already cited studies which they claim “prove” silver nano-particles harm humans as well as the animals in the environment.But of course, what they never disclose is the fact that those studies were done under controlled laboratory conditions that simply don’t exist in the environment. And that in every case, either huge overdoses of silver nano-particles were used, or living cells and tissues were exposed to pure silver nanoparticles in ways that simply could not be duplicated outside of the laboratory, and therefore have no bearing on human or animal real-life experiences with silver.”
Right on Target
Boy was I ever right. In fact, this time the enviro-nuts have really outdone themselves by waiting until just a few short days before the close of the EPA public comments period on March 20th to unleash the following missive against silver, which is full of outright lies, distortions and half-truths, as you will see once we dissect and deconstruct it phrase by phrase. Here is what the environmentalists are now claiming:
“Yet another major study on nano-silver toxicity has been published during the comment period. The study found that nano-silver used in food storage materials, such as plastic bags and containers, can directly interact with genomes and bind with DNA, interfering with DNA replication. Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging, many of which contain nano-silver. Help us ensure that these products are safe by supporting our petition to the EPA.”
Cutting Through the Hype and Exaggerations
Let’s dissect this bold little missive phrase by phrase, and see if we can’t put our collective fingers on the devious modus operandi being used by these radical environmental groups in their campaign on behalf of the big drug companies to regulate products containing silver nano-particles into oblivion:
First they state, “Yet another major study on nano-silver toxicity has been published during the comment period.”
What’s wrong with that statement? First of all, the study they are referencing is hardly what you could call a “major” study. It is in fact a very small study conducted in the People’s Republic of China (yes, Red China, home of the melamine scandal and tainted toothpaste scare) by a little known group calling themselves the Bio-X Life Science Research Center.
Interestingly, the Bio-X Life Science Research Center admit on their own web site that they are operating in association with two major drug companies, AstraZeneca International and Roche.
Who are These 2 Big Drug Companies?
Roche (aka Hoffman-LaRoche) is a huge, well-known multi-national drug company which makes Bactrim, Rocephin, Lariam, Tamiflu, Invirase and numerous other antibiotic and antiviral drugs for the treatment of infectious diseases.
AstraZeneca, another huge, multi-national drug company, state right on their web site that they too are focusing a large part of their business model on developing and marketing infection-fighting antibiotic and anti-viral drugs and vaccines. In fact, they state, “We aim to build a leading franchise in the treatment of infectious diseases by increasing the sales of the marketed brands Synagis, Merrem and Flumist and bringing new products to market by exploiting our structural and genomic-based discovery technologies and our antibody platforms.”
In other words, the group behind the study supposedly demonstrating that nano-silver is harmful is, in reality, in bed with two of the largest drug companies on the face of the earth, both of which are major players in the antibiotic drug, anti-viral drug and vaccine markets.
These are the among the very same drug companies that hate colloidal silver and other silver-based products the most, and have the most to lose if silver ever becomes a major resource in products designed to prevent and cure infections and related disease!
More Deception and Exaggeration from the Environmentalists
Once their first exaggeration is established, the radical environmentalists go on to say in their statement that “The study found that nano-silver used in food storage materials, such as plastic bags and containers, can directly interact with genomes and bind with DNA, interfering with DNA replication.”
Sounds serious. But is this true? No. Once again, it is a cleverly worded deception.
First of all, according to the study abstract, the study authors first openly admit that “…information on whether or how nanosilver particles bring changes in genetic materials remains scant.”
In other words, the study authors admit they simply don’t know whether or not tiny particles of silver bring about changes in genetic materials, or how it might happen if they did. It is all speculation. And that speculation is fueled by the radical neo-Luddite environmentalists who oppose the use of tiny silver nano-particles in on behalf of the major drug companies who pay their bills.
Secondly, and most importantly, the study is not even specifically designed to prove that products containing silver nanoparticles are potentially harmful to humans, or even that silver nano-particles could, by themselves, could harm to humans. Yet the environmentalists would have you believe the exact opposite.
Indeed, their statement is cleverly designed to make you think that the study authors actually took plastic bags and other containers with silver particles embedded in them and tested to see whether or not the silver would somehow leach from the bag or container, and then enter a human being and harm human DNA replication. In reality, the study did no such thing.
What Really Happened
Here’s what the researchers actually did, and what the study actually demonstrated:
First, the researchers exposed E. coli cell cultures – not human cell cultures, but bacterial cell cultures – to three different types of nanosilver, including colloidal silver. (As most people know, E. coli, also known as Escherichia coli, is a gram negative bacteria most widely known for its ability to cause food poisoning.)
And what did they find? They found that “The results showed that the replication fidelity of the rpsL gene was differentially compromised by all three kinds of nanosilver particle compared with that without nanosilver.”
In other words, they discovered that silver disrupts the ability of this infectious microorganism to replicate. That’s it. They actually proved what colloidal silver users have been saying all along, i.e., that tiny particles of silver destroy pathogens from the inside out!
So what did this study have to do with human cells? NOTHING. And what did this study have to do with products containing silver nano-particles? NOTHING.
The Truth Be Told
We all know that as far back as the 1980’s researchers like Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. used tiny electrical devices to generate minute silver particles directly into the surgical wound sites of patients suffering from debilitating and potentially deadly bone infections, and not only did these researchers cure every supposedly “incurable” bone infection with the electrically generated silver, but they also found no harm whatsoever was caused to the patients’ cells, tissues or bones in spite of the fact that the silver was being generated directly into the bone, tissues, cells and surrounding bodily fluids.
Indeed, using this process damaged cells were rejuvenated, and remarkable new growth took place in the damaged bone bringing about complete healing.
The bottom line is that the study being touted by the radical environmentalists as proof of silver’s “toxicity” to humans merely demonstrated, at best, that if you put a sandwich inside of a sandwich baggie or other container that’s been embedded with silver micro-particles, you’re probably not going to get food poisoning, because the dirty little critters like E. coli simply can’t live in the presence of silver.
Nevertheless, the radical environmentalists go on to somberly intone in their latest misleading missive: “Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging, many of which contain nano-silver. Help us ensure that these products are safe by supporting our petition to the EPA.”
What they’ve done, in essence, is taken a study that proves three different forms of nano-silver – including colloidal silver – are highly effective against one of the most prevalent and potentially deadly food poisoning bacteria on the face of the earth. And they’ve cleverly re-defined the study results so that it sounds as if they study proved nano-silver has now been demonstrated to harm humans!
Clever re-definition of the facts…deceptive wording…and ruthlessly self-serving conclusions. That, in a nutshell, is the modus operandi of the radical environmentalists.
Are We Going To Win?
I hate to say it, but the colloidal silver community is on the verge of losing this battle. While over a thousand colloidal silver users and health freedom advocates have actively petitioned the EPA to disregard the demands of the radical environmental groups who are pushing for regulation of silver at the behest of their Big Pharma paymasters, the so-called “Big Boys” in the colloidal silver community have smugly sat on their hands doing nothing.
Indeed, one of the largest manufacturers of colloidal silver in the industry actually joined with the radical environmentalists in asking for an extension of the public comments deadline from January 20th to March 20th, ostensibly because they wanted to “produce new evidence in defense of nanosilver.” Did they ever produce the evidence? Not that I can tell. Indeed, to my knowledge no one has heard a peep out of them since.
To fill you in on a little behind-the-scenes background information, I wrote one of their representatives in January asking them to reconsider their ill-advised request to have the public comments period extended. I explained to their representative in no uncertain terms that they were shooting themselves in the foot, and that they were doing so just as a hard-earned victory against the EPA petition was in sight.
After all, at that time (i.e., mid-January) we had already managed to dramatically turn the tide of public opinion against the petition to have the EPA regulate silver as a “pesticide,” and the environmental groups were running with their tails tucked between their legs as over 1,000 comments from colloidal silver users had poured in to the EPA web site in just over a 10 day period.
I warned however that the environmental groups had vastly larger and far more unified and disciplined membership bases that stretched globallyrather than just nationally. And we explained that given any extra time, the environmentalists would be able to tap into and exploit their vast global membership bases in support of their petition to have nano-silver products – including colloidal silver – regulated as “pesticides.”
I further explained that the flood of additional support for the petition that the radical environmentalists would doubtlessly be able to generate if they were given more time would likely drown out any additional support the colloidal silver community might be able to drum up from among its relatively small and unorganized base.
Finally, I explained that if the public comments period was extended any longer, it would give the radical environmentalists more time to submit self-serving medical studies ostensibly demonstrating that tiny silver particles somehow cause harm to humans, animals and/or the environment (which, of course, they do not).
Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
In a nutshell, I carefully explained to the representatives of this major colloidal silver manufacturer that just as victory was in sight, they would, in essence, be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by giving the radical environmentalists more time to rally their troops worldwide. And I strongly urged them to reconsider their request to have the EPA public comments deadline extended.
But it was too late. They refused to listen, and the EPA quietly granted the extension of the comments deadline from January 20th to March 20th, which was requested by both the radical environmentalists and representatives of this major colloidal silver manufacturer.
Now everything I warned them of has come to pass. The environmentalists have flooded the EPA public comments site with thousands upon thousands of additional comments in favor of the regulation of silver as a “pesticide,” and they are now in the process of releasing new studies such as the one described above, ostensibly demonstrating “harm” from products containing tiny silver particles, including colloidal silver.So can we still win the battle? Well, frankly, it will take a miracle. But I believe in miracles, which is why, in spite of the obstacles, I absolutely refuse to give up at this most critical point in time.
What Can We Do Now?
What I propose is that we now follow what I call the “Gideon strategy.”
You might remember the Bible story about Gideon. He had to lead the children of Israel against tens of thousands of Midianite marauders. But God had ordered Gideon to whittle his initial attack force down from thousands of troops to only 300 brave and faithful men.
So by military standards (heck, by any human standard), the odds were overwhelmingly in favor of the Midianite enemy. But God told Gideon not to worry. He instructed Gideon to arm each of those 300 men with a trumpet, and a lantern hidden within a small ceramic pitcher. Then they were to surround the Midianite encampment late at night. And precisely at midnight these 300 strategically placed troops were told to do three specific things:
First, at a pre-arranged signal they were each to blow their trumpets as loudly as they could.
Second, they were to break open the pitchers covering their lamps, and raise the shining lamps high into the air.
And third, they were told to shout “The Sword of the Lord, and Gideon!” at the tops of their voices.
And what happened when they did so? The Midianites awoke from a sound sleep to what sounded like the trumpet blasts of thousands of armed troops coming from every angle. Then they heard the breaking of the ceramic pitchers and saw the lamps begin to shine all around them, on every side of their camp. Then they heard the terrible shouting: “The sword of the Lord, and Gideon!”
And to a man, the Midianites thought they were completely surrounded by thousands of enemy troops swooping down upon them from the surrounding rocks. And in their haste to escape what they thought was sure death, they began to swing their swords at anything that moved in the dark, killing their own fellow Midianite soldiers in the process. And the more soldiers fell, the more the Midianites were convinced they were under attack by numerically superior troops. So they fled into the darkness like yelping dogs. And Gideon then rallied the rest of Israel’s military to pursue, overtake and defeat them.
Now what does the story of Gideon and his great victory have to do with us?
Simple. The radical environmentalists have us vastly outnumbered. They’ve taken over the comments system on the EPA web site by dumping thousands upon thousands of “click and send” form letters from their global membership base, supporting the drive to have silver regulated as a “pesticide.” And they are now in the process of releasing new medical studies they claim “prove” there is some kind of harm from silver nanoparticles (including colloidal silver), when in reality no such harm exists.
But we have our own versions of Gideon’s trumpet, lamps and voices, which is to say, we have email, fax machines and telephones.
So here’s what you need to do right now:
The public comments deadline is this Friday, the 20th of March. So the next three days are, euphemistically speaking, our “midnight hour.”
And like Gideon of old, who was instructed to attack at the midnight hour with his tiny, rag tag band, we need to start…
Sounding the trumpets (i.e., emailing the EPA)…
Breaking open the lanterns (i.e., faxing the EPA)…
And shouting at the tops of our voices (i.e., calling the EPA on the phone)
We need to let them know in no uncertain terms that we don’t want them to regulate nanosilver in any form as a “pesticide,” and especially, we don’t want them to enforce such “pesticide” regulations against any form or brand of dietary colloidal silver.
We need, simply speaking, to unleash a final massive renewed storm of protest over the plan to have silver regulated as a “pesticide.” Nothing less will do.
So if you can do all three things (i.e., phone, fax and email) please get to it right away. It is absolutely critical that we, like Gideon of old, shake the adversary up like he has never been shaken before. We literally need to make them tremble at the sound of our voices, the light of our determination to maintain our basic health freedoms, and the sword of truth in regards to the safety and benefits of colloidal silver.
Here is the contact information you’re going to need:
Email Your Comments: Email your comments opposing the petition to regulate silver particles as “pesticides” to the new EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Her email address is: email@example.com
Phone the EPA Administrator’s Office: To call the EPA Administrator’s office and voice your opinion on this issue, dial (202)-564-4700
Fax Your Comments: Fax your comments to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, at her Washington DC fax number: (202)-501-1450.
It is simply too late to write personal letters at this point in time, so I’m not going to bother to reprint that contact information, though you can find it in the previous post entitled “Dirty Tricks in the Battle to Save Colloidal Silver from EPA Regulation.”
If you don’t have personal access to a fax machine (they are available to use for just a few dollars at just about any local “Mail Boxes Etc.” or “UPS Store”) then use the EPA public comments page. But that’s only a last ditch choice. Right now, faxes will make the most dramatic impact, followed by your personal phone calls and emails.
If you can, please do all three. We need to make a righteous noise for the next three days. And we need to start now. Just call, fax and email the EPA saying the following:
“I respectfully request the EPA reject the petition by environmental groups such as Center for Technology Assessment and Friends of the Earth to force the regulation of silver nanoparticles as ‘pesticides.’ The petition is clearly without merit, as there is no evidence to suggest that tiny particles of silver are causing any harm whatsoever to the environment. Such a new regulatory burden should not be undertaken by the EPA with such flimsy evidence, which amounts to little more than conjecture and exaggeration on the part of the environmentalists. It is particularly important that you do not attempt to regulate any form of colloidal silver dietary supplement – regardless of its content – as a “pesticide” as this is not only outside of the regulatory purview of the EPA, but is detrimental to the widely acknowledged health freedoms of all Americans.”
Note: In your faxes and emails, please be sure to reference “Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nanoscale Silver Products as Pesticides,” and Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0650-0506. That way the EPA knows exactly what you are talking about.
I honestly hate to keep beating the drum for the little colloidal silver generators. But owning one of these little units may well turn out to be your onlyway to maintain access to colloidal silver.
You see, once you own the means of colloidal silver production, no one can ever take your colloidal silver away from you, no matter how many onerous regulations they pass.
That’s why I strongly urge you to purchase a new Micro-Particle Colloidal Silver Generator as quickly as possible.
With your own high-quality home colloidal silver generator, which is smaller than a coffee pot and even easier to use, you can make all of the safe, natural colloidal silver you want, any time you want, in the comfort, privacy and security of your own home, for about 36 cents a quart. And there is nothing the bureaucrats can do about it.
S. Spencer Jones